The Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a First Amendment challenge to Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed therapists from providing conversion therapy aimed at changing minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity. This decision marks a significant legal battle over the constitutionality of such bans, which are enacted in more than 20 states with support from major medical associations.
Kaley Chiles, a Licensed Professional Counselor, has contested the Colorado law in federal court, arguing that it violates her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Ms. Chiles, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group, maintains that her religious beliefs as a practicing Christian guide her therapeutic approach. She aims to assist clients in achieving their goals, such as reducing unwanted sexual attractions and aligning with their biological sex.
Colorado’s law, established in 2019, defines conversion therapy as efforts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including attempts to eliminate or reduce same-sex attractions. The law allows therapies focused on acceptance, support, and understanding, while exempting religious ministry practices.
Ms. Chiles’s legal team emphasizes that the First Amendment permits states to regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatments, even if such regulation incidentally restricts speech. They argue that her free speech rights are infringed upon, referencing similar cases like the Colorado web designer who refused to create same-sex wedding websites, which the court supported.
Legal Arguments and Precedents
The case revolves around the balance between state regulation of professional services and individual rights to free speech and religious expression. While Colorado cites the need to protect minors from conversion therapy, which critics argue is discredited and harmful, Ms. Chiles asserts her religious and speech freedoms are unduly curtailed.
The petition for review highlights that lower courts have split on this issue. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Colorado’s regulatory authority, pointing to evidence of conversion therapy’s harm to minors. In dissent, Judge Harris Hartz warned against courts prematurely intervening in contentious ideological arenas, suggesting deference to state licensing powers.
Potential Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences. If the court sides with Ms. Chiles, it may limit states’ ability to regulate conversion therapy, potentially affecting similar laws nationwide. Conversely, upholding Colorado’s ban would reinforce states’ authority to protect minors from controversial therapies, aligning with medical consensus opposing conversion therapy.
The case tests the First Amendment’s boundaries in professional regulation, with broader implications for how states balance patient protection with individual liberties. The justices will weigh the legitimacy of Colorado’s law against Ms. Chiles’s constitutional claims, setting a precedent that could influence future cases involving professional regulation and free speech.
Conclusion
The pending case of Chiles v. Salazar presents a critical test for the First Amendment in the context of state licensing and professional conduct. As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate, the decision will clarify the extent to which states may regulate therapeutic practices to protect minors, while also defining the reach of free speech protections for licensed professionals like Ms. Chiles. The outcome could significantly shape the legal landscape for conversion therapy bans and the interplay between state regulation and constitutional rights nationwide.
